Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope.There are lots of us ex-NRA members who want nothing more than reasonable controls on who gets guns. Gun owners are not the problem. Gun nuts are.
What? WTF do seatbelts have to do with guns? They arent remotely alike. They arent common sense. Common sense tells you that criminals are causing the problems and that criminals do not obey the law. What about that statement is unclear to you?How can that be? Seat belts have prevented deaths, air bags, ABS braking systems, safety glass, horns and lights have too. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally frazzled, the potential terrorist, the convicted felon would surely prevent further gun violence.You have to show how any gun bill proposed would have prevented any of the incidents we've seen. Here's a hint: They wouldnt.A single incident? We have to prove a negative? How can you quantified without evidence?His side never had anything. He has been unable for years to articulate how anything he or his side has proposed would prevent a single incident of gun violence.If 4 million reasonable people join the NRA we can depose the radicals and actually achieve the gun reforms reasonable people agree on.
LOL. So instead of arguing on the merits, your side is left with infiltration and deception.
Just great.
The vast majority ofAmericans agree. Ronald Reagan agreed. How did we get to the point we cannot have these common sense reforms? Is it all based in you gut wrenching hatred of President Obama? Do you hate him so much that you're willing to turn a blind eye to gun violence just to make a cheap political point? Is petulence you guiding thought?
I despise Hillary as much as I do the Gun lobbyist like the NRA. But she is right, despite she is a leftist. The NRA and the pro gun crowd yield WAY more power that can be justified by common consensus, it MONEY talking here. Democracy isn't about rule by the elitist of any ilk.
If that were true it wouldn't be the elitist billionaires who are pushing for gun control now would it. Doesn't it give you pause that the uber wealthy are not only taking all of your money, controlling all of your opportunities and now they want to take away your ability to defend yourself.....from THEM.
If that were true it wouldn't be the elitist billionaires who are pushing for gun control now would it. Doesn't it give you pause that the uber wealthy are not only taking all of your money, controlling all of your opportunities and now they want to take away your ability to defend yourself.....from THEM
How can that be? Seat belts have prevented deaths, air bags, ABS braking systems, safety glass, horns and lights have too. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally frazzled, the potential terrorist, the convicted felon would surely prevent further gun violence.You have to show how any gun bill proposed would have prevented any of the incidents we've seen. Here's a hint: They wouldnt.A single incident? We have to prove a negative? How can you quantified without evidence?His side never had anything. He has been unable for years to articulate how anything he or his side has proposed would prevent a single incident of gun violence.If 4 million reasonable people join the NRA we can depose the radicals and actually achieve the gun reforms reasonable people agree on.
LOL. So instead of arguing on the merits, your side is left with infiltration and deception.
Just great.
The vast majority ofAmericans agree. Ronald Reagan agreed. How did we get to the point we cannot have these common sense reforms? Is it all based in you gut wrenching hatred of President Obama? Do you hate him so much that you're willing to turn a blind eye to gun violence just to make a cheap political point? Is petulence you guiding thought?
How can that be? Seat belts have prevented deaths, air bags, ABS braking systems, safety glass, horns and lights have too. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally frazzled, the potential terrorist, the convicted felon would surely prevent further gun violence.You have to show how any gun bill proposed would have prevented any of the incidents we've seen. Here's a hint: They wouldnt.A single incident? We have to prove a negative? How can you quantified without evidence?His side never had anything. He has been unable for years to articulate how anything he or his side has proposed would prevent a single incident of gun violence.If 4 million reasonable people join the NRA we can depose the radicals and actually achieve the gun reforms reasonable people agree on.
LOL. So instead of arguing on the merits, your side is left with infiltration and deception.
Just great.
The vast majority ofAmericans agree. Ronald Reagan agreed. How did we get to the point we cannot have these common sense reforms? Is it all based in you gut wrenching hatred of President Obama? Do you hate him so much that you're willing to turn a blind eye to gun violence just to make a cheap political point? Is petulence you guiding thought?
Commonsense is allusive to the every day progressive...How can that be? Seat belts have prevented deaths, air bags, ABS braking systems, safety glass, horns and lights have too. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally frazzled, the potential terrorist, the convicted felon would surely prevent further gun violence.You have to show how any gun bill proposed would have prevented any of the incidents we've seen. Here's a hint: They wouldnt.A single incident? We have to prove a negative? How can you quantified without evidence?His side never had anything. He has been unable for years to articulate how anything he or his side has proposed would prevent a single incident of gun violence.LOL. So instead of arguing on the merits, your side is left with infiltration and deception.
Just great.
The vast majority ofAmericans agree. Ronald Reagan agreed. How did we get to the point we cannot have these common sense reforms? Is it all based in you gut wrenching hatred of President Obama? Do you hate him so much that you're willing to turn a blind eye to gun violence just to make a cheap political point? Is petulence you guiding thought?
Guns prevent violent criminal attack 1.5 million times a year...according to the rapist, bill clinton....and supported by barak obama and research by his CDC in 2013.........
And how did they keep guns out of the hands of Terrorists in Paris, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, and Australia....?
And how did criminals in Europe and Australia get their guns.....and in Japan too......whose criminals are right now revving up for a gang war, getting guns and hiring hitmen......?
The NRA supports background checks, so what is your point?
No. The NRA doesn't support universal background checks. Most of their members do though.
You are incorrect!
You should first read the actual open and carry law, and understand a business also has the right to deny open and carry.
Also Texas is not the only state to allow open and carry and you have to be license to open and carry.
You should actually read the law first before making wild claims because I can not parade around with my shotgun and would not anyway!
Open Carry : Texas Concealed Handgun License
i thought open carry was the law of the land in states that allowed hunting. Hard to hunt if you have to conceal your weapon. My opinion is, whatever the police are allowed to do the citizens have the same ability.
Personally I don't think open carry protects a person more then concealed carry. What open carry does is allow a person to know where your weapon is and it might actually be the target of a robbery. Especially women carrying openly.
Police go through a very extensive background check which includes a psychological evaluation.
And we see how well that works out. I don't have a problem with the psychological evaluation, just make it as simple as possible.
Written psyc tests are not simple, they need to be valid and reliable.
Reliability is the degree to which an assessment tool produces stable and consistent results;
Validity refers to how well a test measures what it is purported to measure.
The psyc's taken by LE arew both reliable and valid, it cannot predict how life on the streets will later change a persons behavior.
They do weed out many from consideration as an armed agent of the government.
Yet some still go to the dark side, you can't predict everything, no matter how extensive or costly the tests.
She is NOT trying to take guns away from you.I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters? I also cannot fathom why Obama, who is supposed to be the leader of the Democrat Party, opted to use executive order to infuriate a whole bunch of voters. He could easily have simply done nothing and eased on out of office. His action will cause some who were sitting on the fence to vote against Hillary especially since she has decided to enter the fray as well. There are an awful lot of Democrats and Independents who are heavily into guns. To me, it's a stupid political move on both Obama's and Hillary's part.
How does the seller know the person is mentally ill if he/she has never been hospitalized?And mentally ill people who buy guns legally and then let loose in a public place.I have no idea what you mean by a "moderate" gun owner?
In reality, there are only two categories of gun owners.
1) Legal gun owners who obey the law.
2) Criminals who own illegal guns.
According to the form that is filled out when a person buys a firearm from a FFL dealer, a mentally ill person cannot legally purchase a firearm. So, your attempt to rebut him fails.
The same way the government knows a person registering to vote is a citizen, they check a box.
It doesnt really matter what you think. The fact is it does represent a greater burden. And with no corresponding benefit to anyone. You will not answer how you plan to get convicted felons to comply with your rules.You are correct that gun violence is a symptom of other things. So why do you think laws restricting lawful gun owners will change the underlying causes of it?Illinois requires every gun owner to have an FOID card.Fine, but how does one hunter know that the gun he sells to another hunter is not intended to kill his wife/SO or a dozen strangers eating at a McDonalds'?
Of course no one can be certain, but if everyone who wanted to own a gun was licensed, and therefor vetted, the odds are better that the hunter simply wanted to hunt legally, no poach or murder.
Remind me how that lowered gun violence in Chicago.
Gun violence is a symptom of many other socio-economic problems in America, and manifest in the inner cities. It is racists like you who want to blame others, when it is you who create the environment by myopic hate and fear rhetoric, both overt and covert, guised by absurd fiscal and political policies.
The rest of your post is your usual name calling irrational shit. Go suck a dick.
I don't see requiring a license and registering a gun as any greater burden than licensing a car, a driver and registering a vehicle.
Why are you so obsessed with dick sucking? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and since you do so on every post I make I'm forced to complain to the mods.
Post 118, "I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters?"
The implication being that hunter's are effected by the EO. Why would you include them if it were not an effort to pass on propaganda?
No. I simply stated a fact. You can't accept the fact that many Democrats are gun owners? I hate to break it to you but they really are. Now, since you brought it up and I didn't, many hunters do sell a firearm or two every now and again. A hunter, Democrat or Republican, might own a .243 and is not happy with it and wants to sell it to another hunter, Democrat or Republican, so he can then purchase a .270 or another rifle. It happens. Get real.
Fine, but how does one hunter know that the gun he sells to another hunter is not intening to kill his wife/SO or a dozen strangers eating at a McDonalds'?
Of course no one can be certain, but if everyone who wanted to own a gun was licensed, and therefor vetted, the odds are better that the hunter simply wanted to hunt legally, not poach or murder.
Well, for that matter my intelligent friend, how in the hell would a hunter with a license who sells a gun to another hunter with a license, know that the hunter with the license wasn't going to use the gun to kill his wife or a bunch of people at McDonalds? Does that license of yours automatically prevent someone from using the gun to murder others. We have had police officers murder their wives.
It does not. Never have I even suggested a license is a panacea to prevent such behavior. In fact a license held by both parties would give the seller immunity should the buyer commit a criminal act.
Current events in California evidence this fact. The straw buyer who gave the Weapons to the two terrorists in SoCal is now in jail pending trial.
I dont even know what kind of response that was. It was barely English/It doesnt really matter what you think. The fact is it does represent a greater burden. And with no corresponding benefit to anyone. You will not answer how you plan to get convicted felons to comply with your rules.You are correct that gun violence is a symptom of other things. So why do you think laws restricting lawful gun owners will change the underlying causes of it?Illinois requires every gun owner to have an FOID card.
Remind me how that lowered gun violence in Chicago.
Gun violence is a symptom of many other socio-economic problems in America, and manifest in the inner cities. It is racists like you who want to blame others, when it is you who create the environment by myopic hate and fear rhetoric, both overt and covert, guised by absurd fiscal and political policies.
The rest of your post is your usual name calling irrational shit. Go suck a dick.
I don't see requiring a license and registering a gun as any greater burden than licensing a car, a driver and registering a vehicle.
Why are you so obsessed with dick sucking? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and since you do so on every post I make I'm forced to complain to the mods.
No. I simply stated a fact. You can't accept the fact that many Democrats are gun owners? I hate to break it to you but they really are. Now, since you brought it up and I didn't, many hunters do sell a firearm or two every now and again. A hunter, Democrat or Republican, might own a .243 and is not happy with it and wants to sell it to another hunter, Democrat or Republican, so he can then purchase a .270 or another rifle. It happens. Get real.
Fine, but how does one hunter know that the gun he sells to another hunter is not intening to kill his wife/SO or a dozen strangers eating at a McDonalds'?
Of course no one can be certain, but if everyone who wanted to own a gun was licensed, and therefor vetted, the odds are better that the hunter simply wanted to hunt legally, not poach or murder.
Well, for that matter my intelligent friend, how in the hell would a hunter with a license who sells a gun to another hunter with a license, know that the hunter with the license wasn't going to use the gun to kill his wife or a bunch of people at McDonalds? Does that license of yours automatically prevent someone from using the gun to murder others. We have had police officers murder their wives.
It does not. Never have I even suggested a license is a panacea to prevent such behavior. In fact a license held by both parties would give the seller immunity should the buyer commit a criminal act.
Current events in California evidence this fact. The straw buyer who gave the Weapons to the two terrorists in SoCal is now in jail pending trial.
Because I can't, "get convicted felons to comply with your rules" (my suggestions), and you cannot prove that more guns will prevent more crimes, murders, rapes and robberies.
Most of us who support gun control measures do not see gun owners as you self report to be the problem. And most of us responsible supporters of rational gun laws do not support the repeal of the 2nd A. We want people properly vetted.
I for one want to see all gun owners licensed and all guns registered on a State by State basis. Let Texas do what they want, and allow California citizens to vote to license and register or not.
In fact I'd grandfather in all current gun owners and not require that they be licensed or register their guns, the only restriction being they could only sell their gun to a licensed person or dealer, and could only buy an additional gun or guns if they became licensed and registered their new gun along with those already owned by them.
So someone gets more rights than me because they got there first?
Again, I don't trust any more gun control legislation while my rights in NYC continue to be infringed.
Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a handgun permit for my own home?
Why? Because it's the law. Move to Texas if this upsets you so. There you can parade around the streets with your beloved gun on your hip & be free from the law you oppose.
This whole damn thread exist because you are trying to take that right away from everyone. Why don't you fucking regressives move your asses to States that have laws you support and leave the rest of us alone? Thank for showing you true face, hypocrite.
You can read and comprehend, thus you've proved to be a liar.
I've said this about gun control
I don't care what you do in Texas, and rural regions can and should have different gun laws than cities.
- States should decide if they want to license gun owners
- States should decided if they want to register guns
- States should decide on the factors to deny, suspend or revoke a license
- States should decide on the types of weapon to be prohibited
- States should decide on open carry, concealed carry and other forms of transport of guns
- States should decide if guns are allowed in parks and other public places
- States should decide if Cities or Counties can impose stricter rules on gun storage or possession outside the home or business
I believe any sober, sane and law abiding citizen can have a gun to protect his home or business. Beyond that, guns need to be controlled by whatever democratic process the citizens of the State, region or community decide.
So you think the State can remove your ability to defend yourself against criminals with equal or greater force, where ever that need arises? So I guess the State gets to decide if a law abiding citizen really has a right to life, except in their home. Now I must ask, why you support NYC's ridiculous fees and licensing to just have a gun in your home?
I dont even know what kind of response that was. It was barely English/It doesnt really matter what you think. The fact is it does represent a greater burden. And with no corresponding benefit to anyone. You will not answer how you plan to get convicted felons to comply with your rules.You are correct that gun violence is a symptom of other things. So why do you think laws restricting lawful gun owners will change the underlying causes of it?Gun violence is a symptom of many other socio-economic problems in America, and manifest in the inner cities. It is racists like you who want to blame others, when it is you who create the environment by myopic hate and fear rhetoric, both overt and covert, guised by absurd fiscal and political policies.
The rest of your post is your usual name calling irrational shit. Go suck a dick.
I don't see requiring a license and registering a gun as any greater burden than licensing a car, a driver and registering a vehicle.
Why are you so obsessed with dick sucking? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and since you do so on every post I make I'm forced to complain to the mods.
Fine, but how does one hunter know that the gun he sells to another hunter is not intening to kill his wife/SO or a dozen strangers eating at a McDonalds'?
Of course no one can be certain, but if everyone who wanted to own a gun was licensed, and therefor vetted, the odds are better that the hunter simply wanted to hunt legally, not poach or murder.
Well, for that matter my intelligent friend, how in the hell would a hunter with a license who sells a gun to another hunter with a license, know that the hunter with the license wasn't going to use the gun to kill his wife or a bunch of people at McDonalds? Does that license of yours automatically prevent someone from using the gun to murder others. We have had police officers murder their wives.
It does not. Never have I even suggested a license is a panacea to prevent such behavior. In fact a license held by both parties would give the seller immunity should the buyer commit a criminal act.
Current events in California evidence this fact. The straw buyer who gave the Weapons to the two terrorists in SoCal is now in jail pending trial.
Because I can't, "get convicted felons to comply with your rules" (my suggestions), and you cannot prove that more guns will prevent more crimes, murders, rapes and robberies.
1) Do you agree that the issue is criminals committing crimes with guns?
2) How will you get criminals to comply with laws about guns if you cannot get them to comply with laws about murder and robbery?
Pretty simple stuff.
So someone gets more rights than me because they got there first?
Again, I don't trust any more gun control legislation while my rights in NYC continue to be infringed.
Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a handgun permit for my own home?
Why? Because it's the law. Move to Texas if this upsets you so. There you can parade around the streets with your beloved gun on your hip & be free from the law you oppose.
This whole damn thread exist because you are trying to take that right away from everyone. Why don't you fucking regressives move your asses to States that have laws you support and leave the rest of us alone? Thank for showing you true face, hypocrite.
You can read and comprehend, thus you've proved to be a liar.
I've said this about gun control
I don't care what you do in Texas, and rural regions can and should have different gun laws than cities.
- States should decide if they want to license gun owners
- States should decided if they want to register guns
- States should decide on the factors to deny, suspend or revoke a license
- States should decide on the types of weapon to be prohibited
- States should decide on open carry, concealed carry and other forms of transport of guns
- States should decide if guns are allowed in parks and other public places
- States should decide if Cities or Counties can impose stricter rules on gun storage or possession outside the home or business
I believe any sober, sane and law abiding citizen can have a gun to protect his home or business. Beyond that, guns need to be controlled by whatever democratic process the citizens of the State, region or community decide.
So you think the State can remove your ability to defend yourself against criminals with equal or greater force, where ever that need arises? So I guess the State gets to decide if a law abiding citizen really has a right to life, except in their home. Now I must ask, why you support NYC's ridiculous fees and licensing to just have a gun in your home?
Wry doesn't support the Constitution. He's a totalitarian at heart and feels that no amount of government power is too much.
Don't kid yourself... mandatory national standards for licensing, registration, sales, training, etc., are probably closer than you'd like to believe.Certain states enacted that crap. So they got it. But the country as a whole is rejecting it and has consistently for 20 years.When The People want effective gun-control badly enough they will force their elected reps to execute their Will.Obviously not because the people's elected reps have consistently refused to pass that garbage into law.Reasonable to The American People at large, of course.
You know... the ultimate Masters of this land, for whom the Constitution was created, and by whose leave it continues to function.
I'll comply with that kind of crap just as soon as you can prove the criminals are.
When confronted with your own contradictions you have no answer and simply resort to insults.I dont even know what kind of response that was. It was barely English/It doesnt really matter what you think. The fact is it does represent a greater burden. And with no corresponding benefit to anyone. You will not answer how you plan to get convicted felons to comply with your rules.You are correct that gun violence is a symptom of other things. So why do you think laws restricting lawful gun owners will change the underlying causes of it?
The rest of your post is your usual name calling irrational shit. Go suck a dick.
I don't see requiring a license and registering a gun as any greater burden than licensing a car, a driver and registering a vehicle.
Why are you so obsessed with dick sucking? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and since you do so on every post I make I'm forced to complain to the mods.
Well, for that matter my intelligent friend, how in the hell would a hunter with a license who sells a gun to another hunter with a license, know that the hunter with the license wasn't going to use the gun to kill his wife or a bunch of people at McDonalds? Does that license of yours automatically prevent someone from using the gun to murder others. We have had police officers murder their wives.
It does not. Never have I even suggested a license is a panacea to prevent such behavior. In fact a license held by both parties would give the seller immunity should the buyer commit a criminal act.
Current events in California evidence this fact. The straw buyer who gave the Weapons to the two terrorists in SoCal is now in jail pending trial.
Because I can't, "get convicted felons to comply with your rules" (my suggestions), and you cannot prove that more guns will prevent more crimes, murders, rapes and robberies.
1) Do you agree that the issue is criminals committing crimes with guns?
2) How will you get criminals to comply with laws about guns if you cannot get them to comply with laws about murder and robbery?
Pretty simple stuff.
You're a lunatic, dishonest and dumb as a box of dog shit.
Interesting concept.One of the smartest things Dems could do politically is to drop their opposition to guns and invite responsible gun owners into the fold. The GOP would freak out.
